Autnor 




Title 



Class iL..£.15 

Book..„:.4. 



Imprint 



GPO 16 — 7464 



:»- 



^'t 



I fjA_ i^ fi » «^ idi^i v^^;B,,#if\|*,,vi',i^.,;i 



THE BOSTON MASSACRE. 



-A.. O. GOODELL, JFt. 



REPRINTED FROM THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER, 



JXJN-E; 3, 18B7. 



The discussion concerning the propriety of the 
resolve recently signed by the Governor for 
erecting a monument to Crispus Attucks and 
others who fell, under the fire of British sol- 
diers, in King street, now State street, March o, 
1770, has thus far lieeu conducted with consider- 
able asperity, but with too little regard to the 
important principle involved in the issue be- 
tween those who favor and those who oppose 
the building of such a monument as the lesolve 
contemplates. 

The original petition upon which the resolve 
was founded set forth that in the Granary bury- 
ing-ground rest the remains of the victims men- 
tioned in the resolve, that the.y were the first 
martyrs in the cause of American liberty, that 
their names appear on the records and history of 
that time, but "/jo stone marks their burial- 
place," and prayed that a suitable monument 
might be erected to their memory. 

To such a petition there could be no objection ; 
and probably no person who was askea to sign 
it refused, or would ever object to the granting 
the prayer thereof. To be sure there was affixed 
to the gates of the bnrying-ground a bronze 
tablet stating that "the victims of the Boston 
Massacre" were interied in that inclosure ; but 
there was nothing to inalcate the precise spot. 
The circumstances attending the death of these 
persons are historic, and have ever been regard- 
ed as having a direct relation to the subsequent 
events of the Revolution ; and it would be put- 
ting too fine a point on the matter to object to 
the petition because, in describing the persons 
over whose remains it was intended to erect 'a 
•uitable monument," the petitioners used the 
ticurative language applied to those victims by 
contemporary orators, and repeated, over and 
over again, in later years, on public occasions. 
Nor, seeing that none of the families of the de- 



ceased (probably by reason of their poverty) had 
put up even the plainest headstone to either of 
them, and that ihe result of tiie tragedy in King 
street was not limited to the transient expedient 
of withdrawing the soldiers adopted by the repre- 
sentatives of the crown in compliance with the de- 
mand of the citizens of Boston, but was mdmora- 
bie to the whole people as constituting an epoch 
in the earlier stages of the rise of a new and 
might}' republic, would any one giud^e the ex- 
penditure from the state treasury of a sum 
sutticient to cover the cost of a suitable memorial 
at or near their place of burial. 

The report of tiie committee upon this peti- 
tion is dated April 19, 1887. It was accom- 
panied by a resolve wnich has now become a 
law, providing for two distinct things ; first, "a 
suitable memorial or monument to the memory 
of" the victims, "to be erected in some public 
nlace in the city of Boston." and second, 
"suitable headstones to be placed at the graves 
of said persons," and authorizing the expendi- 
ture therefor of not more than $10,000. 

Here is clearly a purpose to do something 
more than indicate the "place of burial" of the 
deceased or provide for an enduring epitapH to 
the individuals named in the petition. The 
large limit of appropriation shows an intentio.i 
not merely to settle a doubtful point in history 
and gratify a very natural and proper desire to 
know precisely where the "martyrs" were 
buried, but to erect a public monument which 
can have no other purpose than to perpetuate 
their fame, to hold up their deeds as worthy of 
praise, and, to commend their example to 
posterity, ..: 

Considering this a departure from the proper 
object of the petition, and believing it to be based 
on a pernicious misconception of the purpose 
for which the annual qrft^Qu '#4^1BSt!tutec( by 'i, 






'2 ' 



• 'llTJie: Boston Massacre. 




♦Le town ct Sdsfon jta f77Jr'Q8 scrott as. I was 
inforntec" ;i;hKl''aKcl:'j[ fe^U-^Chad bfet^ reported, 
which was not until it had passed both branches 
and had reached the executiye chamber, I 
called upon the governor and upon the chairman 
of each branch of the joint committee which re- 
ported the resolve, with the view to have it re- 
called and further discussed lefore it should 
receive the executive approval. 

With regard to the lateness of the protest, it is 
worthy of notice that the Massachusetts Histori- 
cal Society took action upon the matter at its 
first meeting after the resolve had been reported ; 
and as for my own action I can only say that I 
do not regularly read the newspapers, on ac- 
count of impaired sight which makes it uRces- 
sary for me to confine my reading largely to 
my special work, and I had, therefore, seen noth- 
ing in print, nor had I received an intimation 
from any source that any of the petitioners con- 
templated the double purpose expressed in the 
resolve. As for the appropriation, which mem- 
bers of the board of directors of the New Eng- 
and Historic Genealogical Society have, as I 
think, justly and properly described as 
"disproportionate andextravagant," the fact that 
it was vastly more than would be required for 
the kind of monument the promoters of the p3ti- 
tion had in mind appaars from the confession 
In Friday's Transcript of Mr. Jourdain, who is 
understood to have acted as solicitor for the peti- 
tioners, that the committee gave them Jlce thou- 
sand dollars more than they asked for ! 

The two chairmen of the joint standing com- 
mittee which reported the resolve were called 
upon at the suggestion of his excellency, and 
they courteously agreed to hear what the com- 
mittee (of which I was a member) of the Massa- 
chusetts Historical Society had to oft'er in favor 
of reconsidering the resolve at its advanced 
stage, at an mterview appointed to suit their 
convenience. At this hearing, besides what the 
chairman and other members of the committee 
urged as good reasons for reconsidering the re- 
solve, I felt It my duty to strenuously maintain 
that the rei^olve, in departing from the eviuent 
purpose of the petition, had in a manner com- 
mitted the Commonwealth to a scheme for in- 
viting all living men and all posterity to ap- 
plaua the perpetrators of deeds which, of them- 
selves, were not only illegal but not even pal- 
liated by praiseworthy motives, and tnat it was 
only fair to give those of the petitioners who 
knew that this scheme was not contemplated by 
them a chance to be heard on the question of 
confining the memorial to be erected bv the 
Commonwealth to the single purpose of oesig- 
nating the place of interment of the deceased, 
and to an inscription anpropriate to that design. 
I still feel that the petitioners had no good rea- 
son to expect more than they asked for, or to be 



vigilant to prerent the legislature from author- 
izing an imprudent expenditure of money — a 
thing which the' careful committee on expendi- 
tures had never, to my knowledge, been inclined 
fo sanction. 

I deem it aue to Mr. Lewis Hayden, who was 
the originator of the petilion, and who I am sure 
was actuated by commenaable motives, to add 
that he informs me that he called upon me to 
explain the nature of the reported resolve, and 
that, finding me busy, he withdrew, with the in- 
tention of calling again, but was prevented by 
illness from so doing until after the resolve had 
reached the governor. 

Mr. Hayden called upon me again before the 
protest of the members of the board of directors 
of the New England Historic Genealogical So- 
ciety had been presented to the governor or 
submitted to the legislative committee, fie was 
ill and could not stay ; but to several of the per- 
sons who came with him I read the draft of the 
protest, explained its purpose, and pointed out 
the ditTerence between applauding the unlawful 
action of rioters, and commemorating the first 
instince of bloodshed in Boston by British sol- 
diers—which led to the withdrawal of the regu- 
lars, and was succeeded by a train of events 
culminating in r3volution and independence. 

With your permission I shall here proceed to 
give, as briefly as the subject will allow, a state- 
ment of the important distinction which I be- 
lieve the welfare of society, and a proper 
appreciation of the lessons of history, alike re- 
(luire should be pointed out, and its observance 
insisted upon, whenever a project like the pre- 
sent one, which admits of a double purpose, one 
proper and the other improper, is likely to be 
perverted. I shall also endeavor to show that 
this distinction was recognized by the sober sec- 
ond thought of the public at the time of the 
tratred}', by the Boston orators and by contem- 
porary historians, and that among later writers 
it has been approved as sound by those whose 
opinions are most trustworthy. 
^ In the first place, let us remember what were 
the points at issue in 1770 in the contest be- 
tween the people of the Province of the Massa- 
chusetts Bay and the home government, as it 
was then called. The desire for independence 
was not then generally felt. , Five years later, 
even, Joseph Warren, in his 5th of March ora- 
tion, spurned the idea that such a thing was con- 
templated by the patriotic party which he rep- 
resented.* 

Neither was there at stake any question of per- 
sonal liberty. We had our own legislature, and 
judicial tribunals presided over by our fellow- 
citizens : and as for negro slaves, what advan- 

• "An independence on Great Britain is not our aim. 
Ko, our wisli is tliat Britain and the colonies may. like 
the oalt and ivy, grow and increase in strength together." 
-roration, March 6, 1775. 



Tlie Boston Massacre. 



tapes had any of those unfortunate people who 
were held in perpetual bondage under the laws 
of the Province to expect to gain by siding with 
their oppressors in a struggle with England ? 
One of the charges made against these very 
soldiers in the first narrative of the massacre 
prepared l)y the town committee was that Capt. 
Wilson of the Fifty-ninth had been exciting the 
negroes to leave their masters and to repair to 
the army for protection ! * 

)We must not, therefore, fall into the error of 
attributin"; to anybody at that time, much less 
to the mob in King street, the high motives and 
aspirations which in our present advanced state 
of freedom and civilization we conceive to be 
the noblest and best incentives to patriotic ac- 
tion. JEven the British soldiers were not ob 
jected to, as such. The legislature, if it had not 
invited them, had prepared barracks for them 
on Castle Island, under an act of parliament 
which neither the legislature nor the good 
people of Boston repudiated or called in 
(question; and the only dispute concerning 
them had been as to whether or not the act of 
parliament required that they should be billeted 
or quartered in the town, before the place pre- 
pared for them on the island was full, '"tfnder- 
neath the universal profession of deference and 
the outward submission to law, however, there 
was a deep-seated feeling that the people were 
capable of governing themselves and of keeping 
the peaca without tne aid of this detail from the 
standing arm}', which, though it had scrupii-" 
lously avoided interfering with the civil admin- 
istration, had been ordered hither to aid the 
civil powers in ths enforcement of the acts of 
parliament relating to trade and navigation to 
preserve the peace and to prevent smuggling,^^ 
There was one political proposition, however, 
which the leaders of tne people had recently 
maintained with ardor and in which they had 
been supported by men in high places of power in 
England, although the courtiers were on the 
opposite side. This was that-taxatiou without 
representation was tyranny,— that laws passed 
to impose taxes without the grant or consent of 
the tax-paj'ers were unconstitutional and not 
binding, and should be disregarded ano avoided 
by every means that could be discreetly em- 
ployed. The colonists did not at first apply 
this doctrine to the case of external revenue ; in 
other words, to duties payable at the custom 
houses ; but after the repeal of the stamp act 



• An illustration of tlip prevailing contempt in Boston 
for negroes at tliat period appears in tlie confession of 
Mr. .lohn Hill, a Boston magistrate, whose deposition is 
No. 8 in the appendi.K to the narrative aljove referred to. 
The "tall negro drmnmer." who, according to the testi- 
mony of two otiicr deponents, headed tlie partv which at- 
tacked tlie ropcwalk on the Friday previous to the mas- 
sacre ("with a cutlass chained to his body," from which 
one of the deoonents received a cut on the head) was thus 
accosted by Hill: "You black rascal, what have you to do 
with white people's quarrels V " 



two other acts were passed by parliament im- 
posing duties for raising money to increase the 
British i;evennes and to be applied to the pay- 
ment of the salaries of such officers in the pro- 
vince as were ap|)ointed by the crown, in order 
to make these appointees dependent upon the 
crown and independent of the provincial as- 
sembly. To enforce the collection of these 
duties, a board of commissioners had been ap- 
poiiited with authority from the commissioners 
of customs in London. This led the people to 
question the soundness of the distinction tney 
had been making between internal and external 
taxes; but they were not fully agreed on this 
point and so they manifested their opposition to 
these^acts, chiefly by si.;ning pledges not to im- 
port En:;lidi goods. And though it must be 
confessed that there was a strong tendency to 
look upon any evasion of the parli;\mentary 
revenue laws as venial, to wink at smuggling, 
and to consider "custom-fiouse oaths" as mere 
matters of form.^o one questioned the consti- 
tutionality of the acts of parliament re'.atiuff to 
the disposition of the king's forces, nor the 
propriety of employing the army to aid the civil 
magistrate to suppress unjustifiable rebellion, 
but they argued that the quartering the military 
among them under pretext of enforcing the laws 
and preserving order implied either that they 
were wantonly factious, and so was an insult, 
or that the laws requiring such an extraordinary 
measure for their enforcement were contrary to 
the will of his majesty's loyal subjects, and 
ought to be repealed, and that at all times the 
posse co»ii/atus wa,s adequate for the enforce- 
ment of all good and wholesome laws, j 

Perhaps in a few minds the thought was then 
nourished that the almost absolute exemption 
from foreign control which our fathers had en- 
joyed under the colony charter might asain be 
attained, througli the same exhibition of cour- 
age and by resort to the same ingenious arti- 
fices which had been successfully employed 
more than a century before ; and I am not pre- 
j)ared to deny that the deep, far-seeing mind of 
Samuel Adams had penetrated to this result 
through intervening clouds of war and scenes of 
carnage, and that he entertained the settled be- 
lief that separation was inevitable. But no one 
openly avowed this intention and no one would 
tolerate such a suggestion : on the contrary, 
declarations of loyalty were everywhere made, 
and evidently with the utmost sincerity. The 
supposition, therefore, that the mob which con- 
fronted the soldiers on guard at the custom 
house were swelling with high notions of inde- 
pendence and liberty, and had been aggravated 
beyond endurance by the menace which the 
presence of the hated red-coats implied, is simply 
preposterous. However honestly entertained, it 
can only spring from a failure to accurately ob. 



The Boston Massacre. 



serve the order of events and the changes of 
public sentiment which history records, and 
wlilch are clearly apparent to all who wjU study 
it carefully and without prejudice. 

The soldiers were finally quartered in the 
town instead of at the island. Two rej;imentB 
(ana some artillery) arrived from Halifax, Sep- 
tember 28, 1768, and two more, which had been 
recruited in part at Cork in Ireland bj' drafts 
on the people there, arrived on the 10th of No- 
vember following. 

Disputes as lo the meaning of the act of par- 
liament requirmg accommodations for the sol- 
diers arose between the governor and the coun- 
cil, the selectmen and the military otiicers, and 
increased the resentment provoked by the ap- 
pearance and beanng of the regulars, who had 
been educated in a school ot morals and man- 
ners far different from the approved Isew Eng- 
land standard. The profanity, brawls, inde- 
cencies and rudeness at Ihat time characteris- 
tic of F/uropaan army life shocked the bc^tter 
class of citizens not less tlian did the militarj' 
parades on Sunday and the sound of drums and 
fifes which broke the habitual stillness of the 
great Day of Rest — the more perfect keeping of 
which was one of the chief inducements to the 
immigration of the Pilgrims, and an important 
desideratum with the sons of the Puritans. 

I think it cannot be denied, too, that this pop- 
ular repugnance was strengthened by the knowl- 
edge that some of these soldiers, although 
against their will, had been enlisted in a city 
out of the realm, where the lower classes, from 
which the soldiers were drawn, commonly used 
a lans;uage unintelligible to New England ears, 
and were generally of a religious faith totally at 
variance with the traditional faith of New Eng- 
land, and, moreover, were the descendants of a 
people whose adherence to James TI, had led to 
their subjugation by the forces of King William, 
the great representative of the revolutionary 
ideas of 1688 and of that policy of encourage- 
ment to the colonies under which Massacliusetts 
had derived her charter privileges, in 1692. 

Bad people of all sorts took advantage of this 
antipathy to the soldiers to foment quarrels 
with the red-coats, under cover of which to 
commit other crimes. Suspicious strangers 
flocked to Boston from the outlying towns and 
neighboring colonies ostensibly to see and tease 
the regulars, but in reality to rob and nlunder. 
The laws of the province against burglary had 
been recently discovered to be defective, so that 
a culprit convicted of that crime needed only to 
plead the "benefit of the clergy" in order to be 
discharged after being branded in the hand, not 
always with a very hot iron. This evil had so 
increased that about three weeks after the 
"massacre" the legislature deemed it necessary 
tQ pass a law making burglary a capital otTence, 



without benefit of clergy, for the especial pro- 
tection of the citizens of Boston. Assaults, 
iucendiary attempts and other crimes seemed 
to increase with the prolonged stay in th3 town 
of the regulars, until all good citizens were 
impatient at the longer continuance there of 
this source of trouble. In defereucs to this 
feeling two of the regiments had actually 
departed before the date of the fatal encounter, 
but enough still remained quartered in the town 
to keep the community in a state of feverish 
anxiety and to occasion the spreading of th3 
most damaging reports as to the character of 
the inhabitants of Boston for love of order and 
regard for law. Repeatedly, the council, the 
selectmen of Boston and the citizens by their 
committees and representatives had denounced 
these breaches of the peace in terms as strons at 
least as were used by a convention of the rep- 
resentatives of the whole province in Faneuil 
Hall, September 22, 1768, who then declared 
their own loj'alty and that of the people in 
general and advised all, "not in an authorita- 
tive, but friendly manner, to compose their 
minds, to avoid aii}' undue expressions of resent- 
ment, and to prevent, as much as in them lies, 
all tumults and disorders." and further pledged 
themselves to 3'ield eveiy possible assistance to 
the civil mas-istrate in suppressing disorders, 
and recommended the employment of the 
posse rotnitafus for that purpose, if necessary. 
Notwithstanding these genuine expressions of 

"regard for law and order— a sentiment which 
had been earnestly inculcated by the bsst and 
wisest patriots, and especially by John Dickin- 
son, the "Pennsylvania Farmer,'" whose views 
were greatly applauded by the patriots of Bos- 
ton, the charge has repeatedly been made by 
the patriots themselves, and never authorita- 
tively denied, that these broils between citizens 
and soldiers were connived at if not actively en- 
couraged by designing men of influence in Bos- 
ton. It would take too much space to particu- 
larize on this point here ; and, however such 
conduct may be considered at this distance of 
time, it probably cannot be clearl.y shown that 
in some instances at least it was not inspired by 
the same patriotic motive which prompted the 
famous exclamation attributed to Samuel 

, Adams at Lexington on the day of the conflict 
of arms between the British forces and the 
"assembled farmers." 

This was the state of commotion and alarm in 
Boston, and such were the sentiments enter- 
tained by the respective parties concerned in 
shaping events, in March. 1770. It is absurd to 
suppose that the hot-headed men and boys who 
had all along taken part in the combats with 
the soldiers, and who were "spoiling for a fight," 
were anxious for the summary removal of the 
objects of their vengeance, simply for the sake 



The Botttoyi Massacre. 



of the public peace. On the contrary, it U 
quite probable that they were iiiiwiUin:? to lose 
the chance of giving their antagonists in these 
Affrays at least one more drubbing — and one 
that they would remember. Wha^ better time 
for such an assault than when the soldiers were 
on duty, and so unable without the command 
of their officers to retire or to break ranks in 
pursuit of their assailants ? No danger was to 
be apprehended in thus attacking armed men, 
since the acts of parliament forbade soldiers 
situated as these were to tire upon citizens with- 
out express and special authority from the civil 
magistracy, and it was easy to keep out of the 
reach of the bayonets of the regulars, or to 
ward them otF by the use of clubs which were 
readily obtainable. Then, too, the stronger and 
more daring might hope to close with tlie 
jsoldiers, to wrench their muskets from them, 
and, if need be. to use them against their 
owners. 
^ At the time of the fatal aflfray in King street, 
iresh incentives to disturbance had bjen fur- 
nished by recent events. On the '22d of February, 
only 11 days before the "massacre," a lad 11 or 12 
years of age, the son of a poor German named 
Snider, was killed by a former inferior officer 
of the customs, who, in tiring upon a mob which 
was endeavoring to force an entrance into his 
house, hit the boy. The funeral of the child 
had b^en attended "by young and old, some of 
all ranks and orders" "in a solemn procession 
£i'om Liberty Tree to the town house, and then 
to the common burying-ground." Richardson, 
who tired the shot, was seized by a mob and 
threatened with lynch law. but was rescued and 
committed to jail, where, while the tragedy was 
enacting in King street, he was still incarcerated 
on the charge of mur.ler. He was subsequently 
tried and convicted, though against the ruling 
of the court, but was pardoned by the crown 
and immediately left the province. 

This brings us now to the consid««nion of the 
particulars of the tragedy. Fortunately, the 
important facts are beyond reasonable doubt. 
However much a false pride or preconceived 
theories may have warped the judgment 
of later compilers of accounts of the 
affair, and vague and conflicting as were the 
earliest rumors concerning it, and untrustworthy 
as are the one-sided narratives of the town com- 
mittee, even the statement of the latter in their 
report to Thomas Pownall, the active friend of 
the colonists in England, which under the 
circumstances has in this particular the full 
weight of an admission, shows that the affair had 
its origin in a personal combat a few days before 
This is what the committee say : — 

"On Friaay, the '2d inst., a quarrel arose be- 
tween some soldiers of the Twenty-ninth and the 
ropemakers' journeymen and apprentices, which 



was carried to that length as to become danger- 
ous to the lives of each pi.rty, many of them 
being much wounded. This contentious disposi- 
tion continued until the Monday evening follow- 
ing, when a party of seven or eight soldiers were 
detached from the main guard, under the com- 
mand of Capt. Preston, and by his orders 
fired upon the inhabitants promiscuously in 
King street, without the least warning of their 
intention, and killed three on the spot; 
another has since died of his wounds and others 
dangerously, some, it is feared, mortally 
wounded. Capt. Preston and his party now are 
in jail- March 12, 1770." Signed, Jolrn Hancock, 
Sam Adams, W. Molineaux, Joshua Henshaw, 
Wm. Phillips, Jos. 'Warren, Sam Pemberton. 

But the sworn evioence in the only trial of 
which a full report has reached us, which need 
not be recapitulated here, is conclusive to con- 
demn the assault and to justify the resistance. 
Moreover, contemporary testimony of the 
highest credit agrees substantially on that point. 

The third volume of Hutchinson's History was 
not given to the world until 1828 ; and then it 
appeared that this author, himself lieutenant- 
governor of the province at the time of the 
"massacre." and having no intercourse with 
John Adams, or the others whom I shall here- 
after quote, had written out an account of the 
affray differing in no essential particular from 
theirs. 

The Rev. Alden Bradford, who, though but 
5 years of age in 1770, was for 12 years secre- 
tary of the Commonwealth and held other 
public stations, bringing him into intimate rela- 
tions with men who were cognizant of all the 
earlier events of the Revolution. He was a 
strong sympathizer with the ultra patriotic 
party of the Revolution. His History of Massa- 
chusetts is almost the only authentic compila- 
tion we have concerning many important 
measures of the old state government and the 
earlier administrations of the Commonwealtn. 
It shows that he not only took an intelligent in- 
terest in all affairs of state, but understood 
well the relative importance of events. He thus 
sums up the story of the "massacre" : — 

"The people were much agitated at the time 
of the transaction ; but they had time for re- 
flection, and a more full and correct account 
probably satisfied them that, though the bloody 
deed could not be justified, the soldiers were first 
assaulted on the evening the firing took place ; 
and that their acquittal was I'lch m the law ful- 
ly sanctioned." (p. 211. ) 

Another author it}' to which I will refer is one 
of the famous "Boston Orators." He was also 
one of the founders of the Massachusetts His- 
torical Society ;— and here it may be observed in 
passing that among the founders of that society 
were two other of these orators ; that one of 



6 



The Boston Massarre. 



these orators was afterwards recording secretaryw 
ana librarian, and two of them were succes- 
sively treasurers of tlie society, and that three 
of them were members of important committees 
in that body. 

William Tudor, when in 1779 he delirered 
his oration on the anniversary of the massacre, 
kept the true lesson of the tragedy clearly 
in mind,* and his son and namesake probably 
only representjd ttie views of his father when, 
in hi 5 Life of James Otis ^ published in 1823), 
he declared that Capt. Preston directed his 
soldiers to tire in self-defence ; that after the 
tiring -'all the leading patriots and respectable 
inhabitants exerted their influence to the utmost 
to prevail on the people to be quiet" ; and in ref- 
erence to the trial of Freston, that "still justice 
held its course through this conflict of passions, 
and Capt Preston was absolved by a jury 
taken from among the citizens," and 
that John Adams's defence of that officer "was 
made successfully, and will ever hold a distin- 
guished rank among those causes that adorn 
the profession of the law, in which a mag- 
nanimous, tearless advocate boldly espouses 
the side of the unfortimate tLgainat the passions 
of the people, and hazards his own safety or 
fortune in the exertion." 

I ne3d refer to but one other contemporary 
authority. William Gordon, the historian of 
the rise and p:oJjrejs of our rational indepen- 
aenc?, left England to join the colonists in their 
contest with the ministry for their political and 
civil rights and hlierties. lie arrived here the 
very year in whioh ths tragedy in King street 
took place, ana remained here until three years 
after the independence of the Uiiitei fctates was 
acknowledged, and a treaty had been concluded 
on that basis with Great Britain, enjoying 
during that period the intimate friendship 
of the leaders in all the colonies of the opposi- 
tion to British policy and the coercive measures 
of the British ministry. He was very popular 
in Massachusetts, and was made chaplain of 
the provincial congress. After the Declaration 
of Independence, and while the War of tl e 
Revolution was assuming its gravest aspect, ne 
conceived the design of writing his history with 
the express encouragement of Washin<rton. 
For this work all the patiiots to whom he ap- 
plied furnished him materials, and the conti- 
nental congress by formal vote opened to him 
its journals and archives. The basis of this 
work was the correspondence he had held with 
friends in London, Rotterdam and Paris respect- 
ing contemporaneous events in America. 

Upon its appearance his book was received 

•"Our citizens who fell on that memorable ni,'ht, fall- 
ing, bequeathed us tliis salutary lesson, written indelibly 
with thdr blood. Ccnfusion, murders and miseri/ must 
tvtr be the consequence of inercenaru stunding armies 
cantonedittfree ii'ies." "—[Oration Jilarcli 5, 1779. The 
Italics are in the piinted oration. 



i:h u 11 versal favor by the patriotic party. In. 
the list of subscribers are the names of Wash- 
ington, Jetferson, Lafayette, John Adams ; and 
Samuel Adams and James Bowdoin — two of 
the committee of Boston appointed to collect 
evidence in regard to the massacre ; also of 
three of the orators who delivered addresses 
in commemoration of the massacre ; also of 
John Dickinson, the "Pennsylvania Farmer" 
wnom I have alreaaj' mentioned. The names 
of the patriots, Thomas Gushing, Benjamin Lin- 
coln and El bridge Gerry, are in the list. The 
favor with which the book was at first received 
is still accorded to it by all who anpreciato 
the importance of such a work, and who have 
tested its accuracy and fulness and the candor of 
its author. Of all the patriots who read it, I do- 
not know tnat one ever objected to the truth of 
a single part of the narrative ; and indeed the 
only adverse criticism affecting its value as a 
history appeared in the London Critical Review, 
which declared "there arises some suspicion 
that Dr. Gordon wrote under the influence of 
American prejudice" — an objection whick 
surely will not impair his credit as a witness 
against the mob of March u, 1770. rii» descrip- 
tion of the proceedings of "the mob," as he does 
not hesitate to call the assailants, agrees witli 
that given by John Adams and with the testi- 
mony upon which the accused were acquitted. 
I will, however, quote but one sentence here: 
"But from the characters, principles and politica 
of certain persons among the leaders of the op- 
position, it may be feared that they had no ob- 
jection to a rencounter, that by occasioning the 
deat/t of a fetr, might ereniually clear the place 
of tlie two regiments." 

This avowal, which coming from such a 
source has all the weight of an alniission, chills 
us with its deliberate candor, and begets reflec- 
tions on the desperate means resorted to by 
some of the leaders of the populace in those 
trying times which historians generally have 
shrunk from suggesting. 

Much has been said of late to discredit the 
statemeuls of Adams and Quincy at the trial of 
the soldiers, because they were acting as coun- 
sel for the accused. But, under the circum- 
stances. I tiink this is not just to Adams, at 
least, because it appears from contemporary 
sources that as counsel he suppressed evidence 
in favor ot his clients, which was not absolutely 
necessary for their acquittal, and would have 
been damaging to some public leaders. * Quincy 
and he Had some difference on this account. If, 
however, we appeal from .\dam3 the advocate 



♦From tjuinc/, if he liad not lieen cut off iti the flower 
01 nis manhood, tlie events of the Itovoliitioii misht have 
come dowu to us with a diU'erent coloriiif! than they have 
received from tliose wlio have been in the habit of subor- 
dinating trutli to high-sounding platitudes, "glittering 
geiieialilics" and pleasing illusions; yet no sincerer pa- 
triot than he ever lived. 



Tlic Boston Mas.sdcre. 



to Adams the statesman, the political piiiloso- 
pher, and, in a parsonal way, the historian, we 
shall hear him, notwithstanding the statement 
recautly made to the contrary in certain newsjja- 
pers, discoursing thus of the incidents of the mas- 
sacre CO years afterwards in his autoliiography : 
"Endeavors had been systematically pursued 
for many monthi by certain busy characters to ex- 
cite quarrels, rencounters and coml)ats, single or 
compound, in the nujht, between the inhabitants 
of the lower class and tiie soldiers, and at all 
risks to enkindle an immortal hatred between 
them. I suspected that this was the explo- 
sion which haa been intentionally wrought up 
by designing men who knew what they were 
aiming at better than the instruments employed. 
If these poor tools should be prosecuted for any 
of their illegal conauct, they must be punished. 
If the soldiers, in self-defence, should kill any of 
them, they must be tried, and. if truth was 
respected, and the law prevailed, must bo ac- 
quitted. 

"To depend upon the perversion of law and 
the corruption or partiality of juries woula 
Insensibly disgrace the jurisprudence of the 
country and corrupt tne morals of the people. 

"It would be better for the whole people to rise 
in their majesty and insist on the removal of 
the army, and take upon themtelves the conse- 
quences, than to excite such passions between 
the people and the soldiers as would expose 
both to continual prosecution, civil or criminal, 
and keep the town boiling in a continual fermen- 
tation." [Life, vol.2, p. 229.] 

These are all the autto/ities I purpose to 
adduce on this head, although I might quote 
from later writers, such, for instance, as 
Chandler in his "Criminal Trials," an author 
recently very warmly commended by The 
Advertiser, but who repeatedly refers to the 
assailants as "the rioters" and "the mob," and 
clearly shows it to be his opinion that the 
soldiers were unlawfully and violently at- 
tacked, and were justified in defending them- 
selves. Then there are the historians, David 
Ramsay, Hannah Adams and Jedidiah Morse, 
contemporaries of the Eevolution, and Alexan- 
der Everett (in his Life of Warren in Sparks' 
Biographies) Hildreth, Charles Francis Adams, 
Loring's Boston Orators, Drake's History of 
Boston, Barry's History of Massachusetts, the 
encyclopajaias and the editor of the Boston 
Daily Advertiser of March 5, 1870— all testify- 
ing to the same etfect. In short, there is enough 
of such corroborative material to fill a volume. 
There would seem to be hardly room for an 
honest diflforonce of opinion among attentive 
readers of the above and other authorities as to 
the unjustifiableness of the attack and the 
responsibility of the assailants for the death of 
those who fell. 



Nothing, except perhaps the assurance of pro- 
tection by certain powerful managers in the 
town, contributed so much to the display of 
"courage" at the massacre as the confident as- 
sertion that firing by the soldiers was out of the 
question,— a thing absolutely prohibited ; so the 
rioters were noi intimidated by the familiar 
sound of loading ; the ring of ramrods and the 
click of the flintlocks. On the contrary they 
derided these demonstrations as harmless 
bravado, and they attacked the soldiers with 
missiles of every description that they could 
gather, knocked aside their muskets and beat 
them with dubs, and even used the broadsword 
to some purpose, all the while defying them 
to fire, taunting them with cowardice 
and filling the air with their howls, 
shrieks and blasphemous objurgations, while 
above all this din Attucks raised the blood- 
curdling war-whoop— the only legacy save his 
Indian surname, his strength and ferocity th at 
he is known to have received from his savage 
ancestry. All this was too much for human na- 
ture to en Jure without retaliation, and the first 
soldier who had been knocked down recovered 
his position and fired, killing one of the rioters. 
This was unexpscted. Those of the mob who 
were aware of the result of the discharge fell 
back, but as soon as other discharges had fol- 
lowed, and it was found that the soldiers meant 
business, the cowardly mob scattered in all 
directions. As in all similar casjs, innocest 
passers-by and lookers-on suffered eiually with 
the guilty. So the unoffending Maverick and 
Caldwell were killed outright, and other good 
citizens were wounded; but in the same category 
with these are placed, with an absolute disre- 
gard to the totally different circumstances of 
their deaths, for which there is no lonser any 
excuse. Gray, who was bent on vengeance, 
and Attucks, to whom the narrative renders it 
impossible to ascribe, with the slightest regard 
for historical truth, even so unworthy a motive 
as revenge. It would be most gratifying to fi nd 
some evidence that he was trying to assist ttia 
patriotic fathers of the town to preserve the 
peace, which the presenc3 of the soldiers en- 
dangered, by stepping to the front in order to 
prevent a collision between them and the mob; 
but the stern, hard facts on record cannot he 
tortured into such an interpretation of his in- 
tentions. Carr lived long enough to repent h is 
rashness, to forgive the soldier who shot him, 
and to bear testimony that the shooting ^va» 
justifiable. 

But it has been said that it must not be be- 
lieved that the assailants were altogether in the 
wrong, because the jury who tried the soldJers 
did not acquit all of them and that two of thena 
were punished. But all were acquitted of the 
charge in the indictmetU ; i. e., murder. Two 



8 



The Boston Massacre. 



of them were brought in guilty of man- 
slaughter, but they %vere not punished for that 
crime. They were simply branded (which was 
not a punishment known to the laws of England) 
to prevent their pleaaiug the privilege of the 
clergy a second time. This plea, wnicn was of 
ancient origm, was originally permitted to the 
clbrgy alone, who were not amenable to tiie 
secular courts for certain crimes, but were en- 
titled to Le tried by their brethren in the 
ecclesiastical tribunals. After a while, any 
man who could read was presumed to be a 
clergyman, for this purpose at least, and so it 
happened that after the ecclesiastical tribunals 
ceased to try such offenders, and in all places 
where no such courts existed, the prisoner went 
free after Leing marked on the "brawn of the 
thumb" for future recognition. Even this mark- 
ing finally became a farce, for the iron applied 
was sometimes quite cold. 

This distinction, however, is more curious 
than important. It is of less consequence m its 
bearing upon the views of the jury than the 
universal and obstinate belief at that time that 
soldiers were by law absolutely prohibited from 
firing except as I have heretofore stated. Al- 
though both court and counsel endeavored to 
disabuse the minds of the jury of this error, it 
is possible that they did not succeed, and all 
their representations that as men, if not as a 
part of the rank and file, the soldiers had a 
right to defend themselves by all available 
means, may have failed to convince the jury, 
who, in criminal cases, were aamitted to be 
judges of the law as well as the facts. If this 
hypothesis is not correct, there is still another 
which is well supported by the history of the 
limes and the record of the trial. Some of the 
killed were not proved to have been engaged in 
the assault, and as the law was then interpreted 
it would take more than the combined authority 
of the bench and bar to so far overcome their 
traditional reverence for the command in 
Genesis: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by 
roan shall his blood be shed," as to satisfy the 
consciences of the jury that they were doing 
justice in permitting those who were the means 
of the deaths of Maverick and Caldwell to go 
free of all condemnation, however willing they 
might have been to acquit them of any crime 
toward Gray and Attucks . 

To one who knows only the simple narrative 
of this demoniacal mtlje, and has read it dis- 
passionately from beginning to end, it would 
indeed be a matter of astonishment that Chris- 
tian men and women could annually commem- 
orate such an event by an oration, and that the 
whole town should In a body attend the funeral 
of four of the victims. There must have been 
some other and higher purpose than merely to 
do honor to tnese rioters who "died as the fool 



dieth." Indeed, it is a scandalous reflection on 
the good sense as well as good morals of our 
forefathers to admit the possibility of their 
committing the folly which some are so mady 
to ascribe to them. 

What then was the purpose of tne a.-nnal 
oration ? Let the town record of March 19, 
1770, speak for the patriots of Boston : "That 
for the present the town make choice of a proper 
Person to deliver an Oration at suc3 Time as 
may be Juc^ed most convenient to commemo- 
rate the barbarous murder of five of our Fellow- 
Citizens on that fatal Day, and to impress upon 
our minds the ruinous tendency of standing 
Armies in Free Cities, and the necessity of such 
noble exertions in all future times, as the In- 
habitants of the Town then made [for the with- 
drawal of the troops], whereby the designs of 
the conspirators against the public Liberty may 
be still frustrated." 

To guard against the possibility of confound- 
ing an api roval of the riot and the rioters with 
a recognition of the significance of the great 
event which followed the massacre — the retire- 
ment, on the instant demand of the citizens, of 
a part of an army whose proud boast it was 
that it never retreated, an article which had been 
inserted in the warrant for this town meeting, 
and which looked to the erection of a monument 
"on the spot where the late tragical scene was 
acted," was not voted upon, although one of 
the avowed purposes of the monument was to 
serve as a memento of "the destructive conse- 
quences of mililary troops being quartered in a 
well-regulated city." 

To further substantiate this view I have to re- 
fer again to Gordon, who says, speaking of the 
funeral of Attucks, Gray, Maverick and Cald- 
well : — 

"Thus are they distinguished and honorably 
attended to the place of interment, with un- 
paralleled pomp, not on account of persoial merit, 
but to express the vehement indignation of the 
inhabitants against tne slaughter of their 
brethren by the British soldiery quartered 
among them, iu violation, as they imagine, of 
their civil liberties." 

The orators at the anniversaries of the mas- 
sacre have been referred to as approving of the 
riot. I think this a great mistaie. We have 
already seen how Tudor expressed the true pur- 
pose of the occasion in 1779; but a still stronger 
confirmation of the disapproval of mobs and 
violence, which, as we have seen, Bradford says 
followed "a more full and correct ac- 
count" of the massacre than they had at first 
received, appears in the oration delivered on the 
first anniversary of that event in 177L James 
Lovell, the orator, was a trusted patriot who 
subsequently suffered imprisonment by the 
British for alleged treasonable conduct. Son of 



The Boston Massacre. 



the famons Boston schoolmaster, he was un- 
usually well educated, and had the calm, clear 
perception which accompanies a trained mind 
and a-Tiaturally sound judgment. 

In I )veirs oration he studiously avoids men- 
tioning' tne names of either of the victims, or 
their sufferings or merits as individuals, 
hut alludes to the "shocking close of 
one continued course of rancor and dis- 
pute from the first moment that the troops 
arrived m town," only to condemn the practice 
of "placing standing forces in the midst of 
;jo/)M/oi« communities," and says "that whatever 
were the causes which concurred to bring it on," 
"the bloody scens" commemorated "must lead 
the pious and humane of every order to tome 
suitable reflections," and then proceeds, in a 
calm but earnest manner, to deprecate aneer 
and violence ; to urge a steady and conscientious 
regard to law "and to the worthy executors of 
it." He quotes from Dickinson, "The cause of 
liberty is a cause of too much aijrnity to be 
sullied by turbulence and tumult," and then 
adds : — 

'•The Right which imposes duties upon us, Is 
in dispute ; but whether they are managed by a 
Surveyor-General, a Board of Coinmissioiters, 
Turkish Janizaries, or Bussian Cossacks, let 
them enjoy, during our time of fair tryal, th« 
common personal protection of the laws of our 
constitution. Let us shut our eyes, for the pres- 
ent, to their being executors of claims suhversire 
of our rights." He concludes with the following 
exhortation : "Let us behave with the propriety 
andaignity of Fkf.emen, and thus exhibit to the 
world a new character of a people which no 
history describes. May the all-wise and benefi- 
cent Ruler of the Universe preserve our lives 
ind health and prosper all our lawful endeavors 
in the glorious cause of Freedojf." 

The avowal that the purpose of the anniver- 
sary oration was in accordance with tne vote of 
the town was expressly made by Warren, 
Church, Thacher, Hichborn, Austin, Tudor 
and AVelsh, seven of the 13 orators. But, after 
independence had been declared, this source of 
apprehension— a standing army— was no longer a 
terror ; for there was no external power to which 
we bore allegiance, and which could claim the 
right to assert dominion over us by force. 
Hence other subjects of immediate interest to 
the struggling patriots took the place of this old 
menace to liberty. 

It is noticeable that, in the second oration, 
March 5, 177'2, the names of the victims were 
again suppressed. In the third oration, by Dr. 
Church, the only names mentioned were those 
of the youth, Mavericis, and of C:.ldwell — the 
only persons among those fatally wounded who 
were believed to b3 entirely innocent. 

In the 4th oration, indeed (1774) Ha,ncock 



appeals to the "bloody butchers" to know if the 
shaaes of the departed five (mentioned bj' 
name, with Maverick at the head of the list) do 
not haunt them in the miJst of their "debauch- 
eries," — inflated language which would be 
ridiculous if taken literally ; and to give some 
tinge of sincerity to his hackneyed phrases he 
calls attention to tne pitiable condition of Chris- 
topher Monk, a youth who was permanently 
crippled at the massacre by a stray shot. His 
whole oration is figurative ; but the burden of 
his argument is that an organized militia is 
preferable to a standing army. 

In the r)th oration, Warren a second time 
omits to mention the names of the victims,* as I 
believe do all the succeeding orators. Though 
reference is made more or less remotely to the 
tragedy, in some of the subsequent orations, the 
subject was treatea perfunctorily, and it is evi- 
dent that tne orators dwelt with keener relish 
on the stirring events that were daily occurring 
and on the heroes Warren and Washin!:;ton. In 
vain do we search through all the fervid sentences 
of these orators for one clear, unmistakable 
approval of the doings of the rioters, or one 
serious jrropositian to erect a monument to com- 
memorate tneir meritorious! ?) deeds. All that 
appears to indicate such an intention is figura- 
tire. Minot's extravagant figure that the tomb 
of the victims "shall ever stand a basis to the 
stateliest pillar in the temple of freedom, must 
not be taken literally. Indeed, it cannot be 
realized without reinterrin^ their remains, or re- 
placing the Tremont House, and appropriating at 
least a part of the adjoining burying-groundfcr 
the proposed "temple" in which to erect this 
pillar. 

It has been currently credited of late, I under- 
stand, that a stone inscribed with the conclud- 
ing lines of a short poam which appeared in 
Fleet's Post of March 12, 1770, was placed over 
the victims, and this story has been printed for 
truth in some of our newspapers ; but I know 
of no good authority for it, and should be very 
glad to be informed when such a stone was so 
placed, and when and for what reason it was re- 
moved. 

The event was commemorated by an inscrip- 
tion on one of the tablet? on the dado of the 
Beacon Hill Monument, erected by citizens of 
Boston in 1790. This tablet is now embeddeil 
in the eastern wall of the eastern corridor of the 
state house, on the same floor with Doric Hall. 
The Bostonian Society last year caused a 
bronze tablet, suitably inscribed, to be placed 
on a building in State street opposite the scene 



* Althoujrii in this oration Warren suppressed the 
names of tlic victims, he doomed it proper when the 
oration was printed to append a marginal note explain- 
ing to his readers that the phrase, "Your fectilide nn the 
stones bespattered with your lathers brains," applied to 
the "orpiian babes' of "Mr. Gray." 



10 



The Boston Massacre. 



of the firiDg, and have also placed a stone in the 
pavement to mark the spot where one of the 
victims fell. These are all the public monu- 
ments that have been erected or that the event 
requirei. It is simply prejosterous for the 
Commonwealth to erect a $10,000 monument to 
the fame of these victims, when she has never 
paid such a tribute to one or more of the noble 
company of real heroes and patriots that crowd 
the uiorhways of hjr historj'. 

In 1851 William C. Nell and others prayed the 
legislature for a similar monument to Crispus 
AttncKs alone, for which they asked an appro- 
priation of ^1503. A committee, of which the 
late William A. Hawley was chairman, made 
a report on the pelitiou, iu which they give 
the historical evidence f-howin^ that Attucks' 
conduct was not meritorious and that the claim 
that he was the "first martyr" was unfounded. 
The pstitionerj had leave to withdraw [Doc. No. 
100, 1851, Hous3.] That this «as not the 
result of race prejudice may be inferred from the 
fact that this was the first "coalition" legisla- 
ture, which elected Charles Sumner to the United 
States senate. 

To b3 sure, monuments of stone will not avail 
to perpetuate an error of history. Witness the 
monument erected to commemorate the sreat 
tire in London. Th3 inscription on that monu- 
ment, embodying a gross perversion of his- 
tory and an insult to the living iu pro- 
claiming to all the world the falsehood that 
the conflagration was the work oi Roman 
Catholic inteudiaries, was effaced in 1831 after 
it had stoDd there a hundred and fifty years. 
Buc the just resentment, the ill-feelin:r, the grief 
and shame which it engendered during that 
period, and the disgrace it brought upon the 
nation, wore evils of incalculable magnitude. 
The inscription is gone, but to the thoughtful, 
who know its history and its ulterior purpose, 
that monu'uent, in the imperishable words of 
Pope, still— 

l.ikr a tall bully, lilts the head and lies. 

Let us, therefore, le careful to avoid a similar 
mistake. Let us liuild no monument to com- 
memorate any conduct iu the past which we 
would not be willing to repeat today under 
similar circumstances. 

If the only lesson that the popular mind has 
derived from the disorderly doings which pre- 
ceded the Revolution is that they were the right 
things to be done and worthy of perpetual ap- 
p!aus3, it is high time that we adopt a rule 
never to mention such events as the san'^uinary 
artray in Kin:; street and the destruction of the 
tea without expressions of unqualified disappro- 
bation. Which of us would permit his sons to 
engage in such reprehensible proceedings today ? 

It has been sought to palliate or justify these 
illegal proceedings by comparing tbem or cout 



necting them with the later organized resistance 
to tyranny, as if they were in the same 
category. There could not possibly be a greater 
or mora mischievous error. After October, 
1774, when the people, by their representatives 
regularly called by the governor, had organized 
the Provincial Congress, every step towards the 
Revolution was orderly and according to law. 
The people, deeming the alteration of their 
charter by act of parliament an unconstitutional 
proceeding, refused to acknowledge the board of 
mandamus councillors appointed under that 
act, and fell back upon thi letter of the charter. 
The governor failed to meet the assembly ; and 
aftir waiting for him a reasonable time they 
took bis continued absence for abdication, and 
joining with such of the old council as were 
willing to serve, they took control of the three 
functions of government— the legislative, judi- 
cial and executive— ;j/rtrjs(o;),a7y, and until 
they could receive the advice of the other 
colonies as to their future course. Agreeably to 
this advice, the assembly was reconvened under 
the charter, but without a governor ; and the 
two branches proceeded as the charter provided 
in such an emergency, and according to prece- 
dent, to manage all the departments of state, 
systematically and orderly, and to enact laws 
some of which are in fores today. 

Not one thing was done by themtnmultuously 
or oflfensivelj'. The affair at Lexington and the 
battle of Bunker s Hill were proper corollaries to 
the theory' assumed and advanced by the people 
in the most re:;uiar and solemn form possible, — 
indeed, in the only way in which the general 
consensus could be satisfactorily manifested or 
ascertained — that Gage was an intruder, and 
that his offensive movements were unjustifiable 
and an invaiion, and they determined to 
"expulse, repel, resist and pursue by force of 
arms, as well by sea as by land, within or with- 
out the limits" of the province, the invader, 
agreeably to the authority given in their cnarter. 

Later, when revolution was confessedly re- 
sorted to, they were still under law ; for they 
not only maintained the authority of their legis- 
lature, but then, ipso facto, the law of nations 
superseded the inoperative statutes of parlia- 
ment and the impotent fiats of the crown. Then 
the whole civilized world became the umpire to 
which both sides must eventually appeal. Then, 
witnin certain limits, other nations than Great 
Britain had a right to control l)0th parties to 
this struggle; and accordingly, before the con- 
test was ended, they did interpose under the 
supreme law which forbids one nation to un- 
fairly and revengefully exterminate or change 
the status of another. 

I trust, for the honor of our ancestors, that 
the line which they recognized between lawless- 
ness and the highest duty of citirenahip will 



The Boston Massacre. 



11 



never be eflfaced or incorrectly marked by false 
monuments. 

The right of revolution, tor sufficient cause, 
which, ever since the overthrow of the Stuart 
dynasty, has been a fundamental part of the 
British constitution, and was first successfully 
promulgated and maintained by the Puritans of 
Old England (who, at the same time, had the 
courage to punish treason even by the decapita- 
tion of their sovereign), was recognized by the 
Puritans of New England, who transmitted it 
to theii" posterity. Sedition and lawlessness 
were neither inculcated nor sanctioned by our 
fathers. Open, manly, courageous and united 
action won for them more than cowardly as- 
saults under cover of darkness, and mean depre- 
dations by reckless law-breakers in masks and 
fantastic disguises, could ever accomplish. In- 
deed, there is reason to believe that the acts of 
lawless violence which occurred about the time 
of the Kevolution alienated many persons, both 
here and in England, whose co-operation would 
have shortened the war and hastened the con- 
summation so devoutly wished for by all true 
patriots. 

But there are many things in our history not 
pleasant to dwell upon, which are still important 
to be remembered as leading to nobler results. 
Indeed, throughout our sacred annals there is 
scarcely a person or event in which the public 
have at any time been interested that does not 
need to be more carefully studied, and concern- 
ing which more definite narticulars will not be 
eagerly sought for by posterity. It would be in- 
teresting, even, to know more about the troublers 
of New England's peace. With what interest 
should we not look upon a portrait, drawn with 
all the fidelity of a Holbein, of Ann Hutchinson, 
or of her descendant, the lieutenant-governor — 
the great antagonist of the patriot party ; of 
Thomas Morton of Merry Mount; of Randolph, 
"the evil genius of New England" ; or even of 
Dr. Benjamin Church, one of the orators on the 
Boston Massacre, and the first convicted traitor 
of the Revolution ! It is a laudable curiosity 
that leads us to wish that the spot on Boston 
Common where the martyred Quakers were 
buried could ba appropriately and durably 
marked, and that the place where the persons 
executed for witchcraft swung upon the gal- 
lows could be certainly identified and pointed 
out to posterity. Yet does this justify an ex- 
penditure from the state treasury for the erection 
of a costly memorial of crimes and follies long 
since repented of and condoned ? 

On the other hand, the ancient arches of 
Westminster Abbey protect from outwara in- 
jury a sepulchral monument erected by Massa- 



chusetts to the historic dead. Let us avail our- 
selves of this precedent to give the victims of 
the massacre, and the boy Snider, suitable 
monuments in the seclusion of tlJO burying- 
ground whitner their remains were followed by 
Immense concourses of the people of Boston and 
the neighborine towns, and with tokens of 
universal sorrow. Let the stone or bronze be 
inscribed with all that can be learned of their 
history. And let us hope that it is not, even 
now, too late to appeal to "sober second 
thought" to stop there. 

Above all things, let us io nothing which 
shall seem to imply that we believe, or that our 
fathers believed, that a riot was ever anything 
but a hideous crime : that wiltul injury to the 
person or property of another is not an assault 
upon the peace of ail ; and that it should not be 
the common cause of all to suppress the one, to 
endeavor to mevent the other, and to redress 
the wrong inflicted by botli. 

Let the new and strange doctrines that are 
now bearing fruit in Canada, and that nave 
borne fruit in Cincinnati and Chicago — and in 
other cities in Europe and America— no longer 
receive encouragement from the alleged ex- 
ample of the Revolutionary patriots ; but let us 
prove to the oppressed of all nations, who look 
to us for guidance, that our history doea not 
bear such an interpretation ; that our ancestor s 
stood upon tbe constitution and the common 
law of England, and their ov/n peculiar rights 
under their charters ; tnat for 90 years they 
contended for their rights on this basis, and by 
their fortitude, then- patience, their ingenuity 
and vigilance thty put their opponetits m the 
wronq, and so won tlie sympathy of mankind ; 
and that, today, the interpretation of the British 
constitution which they enunciated, and which 
they maintained against the army and navy of 
Britain, is the accepted doctrine of the states- 
men of England, and the established founda- 
tion of its colonial policy. 

Let us show the world that history teaches 
this important lesson, and that both the precepts 
and examples of the heroes who transmitted to us 
the blessings of the freedom we enjoy, and which 
we desire to spread over the world, were in ab- 
solute harmony with the peaceful sentiment ex- 
pressed by our own loved New England poet :— 

Not mine sedition's trumpet- blast 

And threatening word ; 
/ read the lesson of the Past, 
Tliat Arm endurance wins at last 

More than the sword. 

A. C. GooDELL, Jr. 
Boston, May 24, 1887. 



